How Plekhanov and Co. Defend Revisionism

Published:Proletary, No. 39, November 13 (26), 1908.

      Published according to the text inProletary.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1973,

      Moscow,Volume 15,

      pages281-285.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Theeditorial comment inGolos Sotsial-Demokrata, i. e., by Plekhanov
and Co., on our analysis of Comrade Maslov’s

letter[1]inProletary,
No. 37, has now appeared as a separate supplement to No. 8–9 ofGolos.

This“Comment”, in length about half a column ofProletary, merits the attention of Russian Social-Democrats, for it shows how
petty factional interests have led Plekhanov and Co. todefendtheoretical revisionism with the aid of the most unseemly sophistry. Here are
the facts.

“Weare the most determined and absolutely irreconcilable opponents of
thatre-examination(revision) of Marxism which is being performed
under the reactionary influence of the ideologists of the West-European
bourgeoisie and whose object is to strike at the roots of the philosophical,
sociological, and economic doctrines of Marx and Engels,” That is the
first sentence of the comment. “Most determined and absolutely
irreconcilable opponents”— could it be put more sharply? It would be hard
to produce a more grandiloquent formula for thepromisesof Plekhanov
and Co.

But... the trouble is that our “irreconcilable” enemies of
revisionism resort to a very meaningful “but”in relation to
Maslov(and Plekhanov and Co. wrote this Comment precisely in connection
with Maslov’s article, precisely on the question of Maslov’s
revisionism).

“Butwe have never been Marxist sectarians,” Plekhanov
and Co. declare, “and we realise only too well that one can
differ from Marx and Engels on one question or another,and far from perverting their point of view or repudiating their method, remain
true to both.” And this example is cited: Cunow, a
Social-Democrat, had “partial differences with Engels” on the
question of “the origin of the matriarchate”, but “only a
morbid mind could accuse him, of revisionism on these grounds”.

“Theforegoing holds good also for our attitude to
   Comrade Maslov’s views on Marx’s theory of rent. We do not share this
   view” (Golosadds editorially: “Comrade Martynov made the
   specific reservation in No. 4 ofGolosthat he did not agree with
   Comrade Maslov’s amendment to the theory of absolute rent”), “but
   we do not regard it as revisionism....”

“Theforegoing holds good also for our attitude to
   Comrade Maslov’s views on Marx’s theory of rent. We do not share this
   view” (Golosadds editorially: “Comrade Martynov made the
   specific reservation in No. 4 ofGolosthat he did not agree with
   Comrade Maslov’s amendment to the theory of absolute rent”), “but
   we do not regard it as revisionism....”

Thereader can now follow the Plekhanov and Co. trend of reasoning. We are
“absolutely irreconcilable opponents of revisionism”,but—“we do not regard it [Maslov’s view on the theory of
absolute rent] as revisionism”. Revisionism strikes at the roots of
Marx’s doctrine, whereas Maslov differs with Marx on a partial
issue—such is the line of defence taken by Plekhanov and Co., and fully
amplified by the reference to Cunow.

Weask the unbiased and thinking reader: is this not sophistry? Marx’s
theory of absolute rent is declared a “partial issue”! Differences on his
theory of rent areequatedwith the fact that Cunow had “partial
differences” with Engels on the origin of the matriarchate! Plekhanov and
Co. apparently consider their Mensheviks little children to be fed on such
explanations. One has to have no respect for oneself or for one’s reader
to play the clown like this in discussing cardinal questions of
principle. Plekhanov and Co. themselves begin their explanation with a solemn
phrase in which revisionism is described as striking at therootsof
Marx’s and Engels’s doctrine. Very well. But do Plekhanov and
Co. renouncethatattitude in the case of Maslov? Yes or no? Or have
Plekhanov and Co. penned their comment only toconcealtheir thoughts?

Maslovhas declared, in a number of articles and in several editions of hisAgrarian Question, that (1) Marx’s theory of absolute
rent is wrong; (2) the appearance of such a theory is due to the
“rough” nature of Volume III; (3) “diminishing returns”
are afact; (4) if the theory ofabsolute rent were correct and the “law of diminishing returns”
wrong, the Narodniks in Russia and the revisionists the world over might prove
to be right.

Thesewere the four points which were held against Maslov in theProletaryarticle from which the whole polemic began. But just see how
Plekhanov and Co. react. First, they very modestly confine themselves to the
question of rent, i. e., they maintain complete silence on all the other
questions. Is this not defence of revisionism? Are Plekhanov and Co. going to
deny that the revision of Marx’s theory about the absurdity of both the
law and “fact” of diminishing returns “is being performed
under the reactionary influence of the ideologists of the West-European
bourgeoisie”? Secondly, the theory of absolute rent is equated with a partial
question, with differences (“partial”) over the origin of the
matriarchate!

This,gentlemen, is mental acrobatics! And you are using them to conceal your
public defence of revisionism. Foryou do not ventureto state openly
that recognition of absolute rent and negation of the law (or
“fact”) of diminishing returns arenotthe
“roots” of Marx’s economic doctrine on the agrarian
question. You defend your “own chap” by adjusting Marx to fit
Maslov, by declaring that, inMaslov’s case, the veryrootsof Marx’stheoryare no more than a matter of
“partial differences”. You thereby confirm whatProletary(No. 33[2])

said about the Menshevik theoretical

			      Famusovs,[3]who reward their
household by agreeing to regard Marx’s economictheoryas a
“partial” question and by putting it on a par with the question of
the origin of the matriarchate.

Plekhanovand Co. are, “irreconcilable enemies of revisionism”—but
if you are a Menshevik, don’t be afraid of these dread words! You can go
to theGoloseditors, knowing that for Mensheviks irreconcilability is
very reconcilable— so much so that they are prepared to equate
“uprooting of theory” with “differences over the origin of the
matriarchate”. Indulgences are being offered cheap, ladies -and
gentlemen, the sale is on!

Butto continue. We do not share Maslov’s views on rent, say Plekhanov and
Co. Martynov has already made a reservation to that effect, they add. The
“individual” whom the editors ofProletarydescribed as
“Maslov’s guardian angel” (i. e., Plekhanov), has “often
[listen to this!]polemised in the press [Golositalics] with Comrade
Maslov on subjects closely related to our agrarian programme”.

That,literally, is what Plekhanov and Co. say in their “Comment”!

Learnfrom your editors how to write disclaimers, Menshevik comrades. Here you
have a classical example. The point at issue is revisionism, and the controversy
began about whether it was theoretical irreconcilability oronlypetty
factional spite that made Plekhanov refer to several of his opponents, in the
Party organ, as “Messrs.” But the “disclaimer” says:
Plekhanov “often polemised in the press” with Maslov, butnot
about the rent theory and notabout Maslov’s deviations from Marxian
theory.

Isthere a suitable parliamentary expression to describe such methods?
Plekhanov, who is a lover of theoretical controversies, and is able, on
occasion, to turn them into campaigns, hasnever, not once, polemisedwith Maslov about what constitutes his revisionism, i. e., his negation of the
absolute rent theory, his describing it as a “rough note”, his
defence of the “fact” of diminishing returns, or about whether or
not the Narodniks and revisionists might have proved to be right if Maslov had
not refuted Marx. Not once did Plekhanov argue onthese points:he
polemised about something quite different, namely, side issues, which the
Menshevik

			      Tartuffes[4]have now concealed behind a subtly hazy, deliberately
misleading and diplomatically confused phrase: “subjects closely related
to our agrarian programme”!

Brilliant,what? One cannot help congratulating Plekhanov and Co. on this
opening defence of revisionism! One cannot help recalling politicians of the
Clemenceau stamp. Clemenceau, “irreconcilable” enemy of reaction,
“often polemised” with it, but now, with reaction in thesaddle, Clemenceau makes reservations and ... serves it. Plekhanov is an
“irreconcilable” enemy of revisionism. Plekhanov has “often
polemised” with Maslov (on every imaginable subjectexceptMaslov’s revisionism). And now Maslov has come out against Marx, repeating
his old arguments against the Marxian theory in the pages ofGolos, but
Plekhanov and Co. only makereservations!

Buyyour indulgences, literary gentlemen, sign up with the Mensheviks! Tomorrow
you will be given the opportunity to refute Marx’s theory of value as
well in the pages of Golos—with the reservation in a comment by the editors
that they “are not in agreement”....

“WillnotProletaryendeavour,” Plekhanov and Co. ask in the
same Comment, “‘to substantiate its remark’ about the connection
between
Maslov’s. reflections on absolute rent and the programme which repudiates
nationalisation?” With the greatest of pleasure, dear
“irreconcilables”. Here is a brief firstsubstantiationto
start. with:

“Isit possible, while failing to. understand Marx’s theory of
absolute rent, to appreciate the role of private property in land as an obstacle
to the development of the productive forces of capitalist society?”

ConsultMaslov, “irreconcilable” Plekhanov and Co., and answerthatquestion, which gives you the substantiation you want!

[1]Seepp. 247–54 of this volume.—Ed.

[2]Seepp. 189–90 of this volume.—Ed.

[3]SeeNote 95.—Ed.

[4]Hypocrites:the character typifying this vice in Molière’s comedy of
the same name.—Ed.